The Minimal State is No State At All - Zac

 The minimal state is no state at all.

Nozick begins by stating "The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified." Implying that a state that goes beyond what is minimally required is unjustified. The obvious defense is to offer one of the many models of a more expansive state, and explain its virtues i.e. at securing distributive justice. Nozick preempts these arguments by arguing against the state's abilities to secure these benefits i.e. a central distributive mechanism ensuring distributive justice. However in the method by which he argues against these orthodox expansive state accounts which privileges the minimizing of the state in all instances as desirable, Nozick leaves his account open to anarchism. Hence, the first sentence, I believe Nozick's ideal minimal state is no state at all.

Presumably like Nozick's expansive state dissenters, Nozick would appeal to the necessity of the state on its grounds to secure some virtue, i.e. rectifying injustice in holdings. However it seems for Nozick this goal is better realized with no systemic management by independent individual agents free from any state "The system of entitlements is defensible when constituted by the individual aims of individual transactions. No overarching aim is needed, no distributional pattern is required." (pg. 159) I imagine this anarcho-capitalist society looking something like a giant unregulated black market, covering all goods and services not just traditionally considered criminal ones. And again this seems to better achieve Nozick's goals by having no chosen pattern of distribution at all "our objection is against all attempts to impress upon society a deliberately chosen pattern of distribution, whether it be an order of equality or of inequality." (pg. 158 Nozick quotes Hayek) Fundamentally his view "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," (pg. 160) fits in with a psuedo-Hobbesian account with some Darwinism evolutionary theory where the more able-meritious person deserves their higher distribution of earnings. Those with power, wealth, etc. become free agents capable of choice, and others subject to being chosen, think hiring with employer/employee. This is consistent with Nozick's view that merit ought reduce or increase someones share "so that he deserved to be punished, deserved to have a lower share." (pg. 154) The result is the minimal state, an anarcho-capitalist society with universal black market competition, best fulfills these conditions. This society is structured by individual agency and fighting for one's distribution of wealth. Is it a good distribution of wealth, no, but any state larger cannot be justified under Nozick's view.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more